Artificer?

[zylodrizzt]

Any word cause I think this is the last Monday of February.

[tmjr6]

There's a good chance that it might come later this week.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It has been stated on multiple occasions (sadly I don't have a link to the tweet to confirm this) that it is going to drop on "the last week of February"

We're all hoping that it's today, but they've left themselves a window to hold it until as late as this Thursday (unless it is delayed again)

[Daithi]

It has been stated on multiple occasions (sadly I don't have a link to the tweet to confirm this) that it is going to drop on "the last week of February"

We're all hoping that it's today, but they've left themselves a window to hold it until as late as this Thursday (unless it is delayed again)

This is the last week of February. Since UA usually goes up on Mondays, I too thought they might put it up today, but nope.

[Mortis_Elrod]

trying not to get frustrated at them, for literally waiting till the last few days of the month. 'last half of February' indeed. Really i should be used to this by now...

*waits patiently*

[Misterwhisper]

trying not to get frustrated at them, for literally waiting till the last few days of the month. 'last half of February' indeed. Really i should be used to this by now...

*waits patiently*

Keep waiting, be lucky if we get it thursday

[Daphne]

It will probably be delayed again. They could just admit it's not coming any time soon tbh.

[jaappleton]

It will probably be delayed again. They could just admit it's not coming any time soon tbh.

I don't think they can delay it again at this point.

They skipped January. They skipped the normal date in February. Then they said sometime by the end of the month.

If they miss this deadline, people are going to be pissed.

I'm not talking the 'oh typical whiny UA lovers not getting what they want, its free blah blah' pissed. I'm not talking me groaning about the missed deadlines again pissed. I'm talking PISSED. While I'll just be disappointed, they'd get bombarded by hate over pushing it off again.

So, I really do believe that it'll be out in February. I do, and I'm typically the biggest skeptic.

But... I do think they're going to skip March. "Oh we just gave you a whole new class, we're taking a break". I can see that coming.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I don't think they can delay it again at this point.

They skipped January. They skipped the normal date in February. Then they said sometime by the end of the month.

If they miss this deadline, people are going to be pissed.
Ever waited for DLC from Bethesda....

[jaappleton]

ever waited for dlc from bethesda....

i paid for horse armor!

[Daphne]

If they miss this deadline, people are going to be pissed.

I'm not talking the 'oh typical whiny UA lovers not getting what they want, its free blah blah' pissed. I'm not talking me groaning about the missed deadlines again pissed. I'm talking PISSED. While I'll just be disappointed, they'd get bombarded by hate over pushing it off again.

Yeah, I'd usually defend WotC from 'typical whiny UA lovers' as you said, but they dropped the ball too many times already.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I dunno about Wizards, but I put out a pretty good Artificer in my book...

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ever waited for DLC from Bethesda....

I played Skyrim on PS3.

I know all about waiting for DLC.

[Belac93]

The thing about UA that makes me not get mad at the people who complain when it's late is that, even with all the releases, it's not NEARLY making up for the amount of books that got released in previous editions.

5e, over the last 4.5 years, has released 16 books (not counting the starter set, but counting Ebberon).

4e, over the course of about 3.5 years, has released (by my count) 42 books. I'm using 4e for this cause I never played 3e.

This is only counting books over at least 100 pages, and not counting any reprintings.

So, 5e has had about 3.5 books per year. 4e had about 12

I'm not saying we should have a book per month, but also remember that 4e had a LOT of extra content added. Like, a lot a lot. 3 player's handbooks, 5 books devoted entirely to expanding existing class options, remakes of every base class in the player's handbook, and at least 9 more classes that I'm remembering.

So, yeah. I think we have the right to be a tad bit annoyed that Wizards is doing the bare minimum they can get away with, especially on the player's side of things. We're nearly 5 years into the game and they're just now releasing the second playtest document for the first new class, and we've only gotten about 3 books that add anything significant player-wise (I'm counting MTOF, SCAG, EEPG, and VGTM as adding up to about 2 books of PC options when put together).

[ProsecutorGodot]

SNIP
I don't think it's a bad thing that the content doesn't flow as fast as previous editions. This is a concious decision from the developers as well.

Also keep in mind that they've been working on elements of DND outside of the printed material. DND Beyond is still being actively worked on an improved. They're also put a lot of their time into marketing and streaming.

On a standard UA, being a bit late is disappointing but understandable. It's common for UA to slow down a bit while they're actively working on a release (which we learned very recently that they are)

That said, when they hype up a release this much (Artificer, and to a lesser extant, the Mystic overhaul that Mearls was teasing in his Happy Fun Hour) I'm all for a bit of criticism if they decide to delay that project again. I will also concede that despite a large amount of interesting subclasses, there is room wide open for a new Class that has been left bare for too long.

Just in general as well, I would avoid making too many comparisons with older edition release schedules. It's a different game with different development goals. 4E (from what I know) was streamlined to a degree that content was easy to hamfist in without causing any big issue.

tl;dr - I agree, mostly, 5E is not 4E and I don't recommend making the comparison.

[Throne12]

Ever waited for DLC from Bethesda....

Hahahaha or a new Diablo game.

[Daphne]

DND Beyond is still being actively worked on an improved..

WotC doesn't work on D&D Beyond, the site is run by Curse.

[jaappleton]

You don't want 5E to push out as many books as quickly as they did for 4E.

That was a mistake. 4E had too many books too quickly and it was a mess. Power creep galore, unbalanced material, just... No.

Look, I LOVE 5E player options. I want ALL THE SPELLS, ALL THE ARCHETYPES! But I also know that if they push them out willy nilly, its going to be poor quality.

[Daphne]

I also know that if they push them out willy nilly, its going to be poor quality.

Not only that, but a lot of potential new players will look at how many books they "have" to buy and get intimidated and/or lose interest on the game.

[ProsecutorGodot]

WotC doesn't work on D&D Beyond, the site is run by Curse.

It's not entirely disconnected, there are aspects of DND Beyond that will forever require input from WotC. It's a partnership.

You're right though, it's not as if they're doing it in house.

[Mortis_Elrod]

You don't want 5E to push out as many books as quickly as they did for 4E.

That was a mistake. 4E had too many books too quickly and it was a mess. Power creep galore, unbalanced material, just... No.

Look, I LOVE 5E player options. I want ALL THE SPELLS, ALL THE ARCHETYPES! But I also know that if they push them out willy nilly, its going to be poor quality.

I don't think when we compare release schedules between editions people want the exact same amount of content.

We just want more than what were getting, its not like that's an immediate jump to 8+ books a year or something crazy.

Just more, and with just an once of consistency. This is too cautious of an approach.

[Tectorman]

I don't think when we compare release schedules between editions people want the exact same amount of content.

We just want more than what were getting, its not like that's an immediate jump to 8+ books a year or something crazy.

Just more, and with just an once of consistency. This is too cautious of an approach.

Not cautious enough if AL can't even trust that players can use material from more than two books to make a character. Especially when some of that material is nothing more than "not taking the Tiefling's standard +2 to Cha and taking a +2 to Dex instead"; you know, material that is 1) already established in the PHB already (the SCAG just reconfigures how the Tiefling uses it) and 2) is the kind that a player writes on his character sheet at character creation and then needs never open the SCAG ever again.

[Tetrasodium]

Yeah, I'd usually defend WotC from 'typical whiny UA lovers' as you said, but they dropped the ball too many times already.

In one of the streams they said it will be the 28th. On top of all the delays, there is also the fact that all of the previous artificer versions were made for a setting other than the one artificer comes from*. It's not just UA though, people who bought wayfinders guide to eberron won't have artificer added to wgte until the UA.

With that said, I'm glad this coming version was made to fit eberron & look forward to it as well as moregraves misc.


* fans of that other setting would be just as annoyed if they kept making versions of something important to it that were based on a barely/rather incompatible settinf.

[Lord Vukodlak]

So, yeah. I think we have the right to be a tad bit annoyed that Wizards is doing the bare minimum they can get away with, especially on the player's side of things. We're nearly 5 years into the game and they're just now releasing the second playtest document for the first new class, and we've only gotten about 3 books that add anything significant player-wise (I'm counting MTOF, SCAG, EEPG, and VGTM as adding up to about 2 books of PC options when put together).

Its a matter of quality, Wizards would crap out material as fast as they could for 4th and 3rd edition with very little if any play testing.

[ad_hoc]

4e, over the course of about 3.5 years, has released (by my count) 42 books. I'm using 4e for this cause I never played 3e.

After 4e people thought that D&D might be dead.

Not exactly the model that should be copied.

I bet that the market is already being saturated for a lot of players. Most people don't purchase everything. 2 adventures and 1 rules add on per year is exactly right.

For the (low) number of enthusiasts there is both DM's Guild and many supplements by other companies writing for '5e Fantasy'.

[Chunkosaurus]

I don't think it's a bad thing that the content doesn't flow as fast as previous editions. This is a concious decision from the developers as well.

Also keep in mind that they've been working on elements of DND outside of the printed material. DND Beyond is still being actively worked on an improved. They're also put a lot of their time into marketing and streaming.

On a standard UA, being a bit late is disappointing but understandable. It's common for UA to slow down a bit while they're actively working on a release (which we learned very recently that they are)

That said, when they hype up a release this much (Artificer, and to a lesser extant, the Mystic overhaul that Mearls was teasing in his Happy Fun Hour) I'm all for a bit of criticism if they decide to delay that project again. I will also concede that despite a large amount of interesting subclasses, there is room wide open for a new Class that has been left bare for too long.

Just in general as well, I would avoid making too many comparisons with older edition release schedules. It's a different game with different development goals. 4E (from what I know) was streamlined to a degree that content was easy to hamfist in without causing any big issue.

tl;dr - I agree, mostly, 5E is not 4E and I don't recommend making the comparison.

D&D Beyond is not run by WOTC

[Belac93]

I agree that I don't want things as fast, but more player options would be nice. I'm not saying a book a month, but more than one every 4 months would be nice. Maybe one every 2 and a half months or something, not quite doubling the schedule, but at least speeding it up.

And for god's sake, more subclasses and races.

[jaappleton]

I agree that I don't want things as fast, but more player options would be nice. I'm not saying a book a month, but more than one every 4 months would be nice. Maybe one every 2 and a half months or something, not quite doubling the schedule, but at least speeding it up.

And for god's sake, more subclasses and races.

I'll agree that they could do one more book a year. Maybe alternate with what it is.

Like every year, you either get a conversion of older adventures like Tales from the Yawning Portal (which brings with it a couple new magic items), or you get something like Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

[Bloodcloud]

i paid for horse armor!

Dude... dude!

(Ok, I also got it but as a package with Knight of the nine)

[Bloodcloud]

I'll agree that they could do one more book a year. Maybe alternate with what it is.

Like every year, you either get a conversion of older adventures like Tales from the Yawning Portal (which brings with it a couple new magic items), or you get something like Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

A monster book, a player's book, 2 adventures with a bit of both. That would be pretty good to me.

I really do like the monsters from Volo and even more Mordenkainen. I find they are getting better at monster design.

[JackPhoenix]

A monster book, a player's book, 2 adventures with a bit of both. That would be pretty good to me.

I really do like the monsters from Volo and even more Mordenkainen. I find they are getting better at monster design.

PC options, however, are getting worse. Volo's races were terrible, and now we've got GGR stuff... XGtE was (mostly) fine, though, but significant part of it's content was reprint of other stuff.

[Max_Killjoy]

So far the earlier versions of the Artificer I've seen have seemed kinda clunky, particularly the parts around making magic items.

[Misterwhisper]

So far the earlier versions of the Artificer I've seen have seemed kinda clunky, particularly the parts around making magic items.

The issues I had were:

1. Their casting is just an afterthought. It is AT and EK level of casting on a base class.

2. Their crafting of magic items is not making it to print, too many dms hold magic carrot items over the group and also items are optional in some games. It also kind of screws over AL.

3. The mechanical servant should be its own subclass not a tacked on ability to the whole class. Also it kind of is a slap in the face to beast master rangers which they still will not admit needs a rework.

4. Thundercannon needs a rework. Ranged damage once a turn at the same damage as a rogue backstab which gets more options later is kind of insulting to rogues.

[Sindal]

The issues I had were:

1. Their casting is just an afterthought. It is AT and EK level of casting on a base class.

2. Their crafting of magic items is not making it to print, too many dms hold magic carrot items over the group and also items are optional in some games. It also kind of screws over AL.

3. The mechanical servant should be its own subclass not a tacked on ability to the whole class. Also it kind of is a slap in the face to beast master rangers which they still will not admit needs a rework.

4. Thundercannon needs a rework. Ranged damage once a turn at the same damage as a rogue backstab which gets more options later is kind of insulting to rogues.

*adds on*

5. The alchemist subclass just being extra options as you go along was kinda bleh.

I reeeaaallllyyy hope we get a nice solid base this time =)

[Tetrasodium]

PC options, however, are getting worse. Volo's races were terrible, and now we've got GGR stuff... XGtE was (mostly) fine, though, but significant part of it's content was reprint of other stuff.

wayfinders guide to eberron (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/247882/Wayfinders-Guide-to-Eberron-5e) & Faithful of eberron (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/257238/The-Faithful-of-Eberron) both have a bunch of options (30ish classes & around 25 racial options). The problem you are griping about is wotc pretty much only putting stuff for a specific setting into hardcover books still

A monster book, a player's book, 2 adventures with a bit of both. That would be pretty good to me.

I really do like the monsters from Volo and even more Mordenkainen. I find they are getting better at monster design.
mtof & ggte have very good selections of monsters yes. I feel like a big part of the improvement is that they have been willingto start drawing monster inspiration from more than one specific setting. ggte especially has a nice selection of monsters that fit in easily as mabaran undead, irian deathless, daelkyr creations, etc.



The issues I had were:

1. Their casting is just an afterthought. It is AT and EK level of casting on a base class.

2. Their crafting of magic items is not making it to print, too many dms hold magic carrot items over the group and also items are optional in some games. It also kind of screws over AL.

3. The mechanical servant should be its own subclass not a tacked on ability to the whole class. Also it kind of is a slap in the face to beast master rangers which they still will not admit needs a rework.

4. Thundercannon needs a rework. Ranged damage once a turn at the same damage as a rogue backstab which gets more options later is kind of insulting to rogues.


Being made for a setting like mtg and/or thew twice destroyed (spellplague & sundering) Lantan in forgotten realms led to most of those problems you note in the earlier versions. The next iteration is supposed to be based on eberron & has plenty of community made stuff on dmsguild to draw from now.

On your last point about the thundercannon, I violently disagree. It's not that the thundercannon "needs work", It is that the thundercannon is poorly implemented and tacked onto artificer hoping to shoehorn matt mercer's gunslinger (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/170778/Gunslinger-Martial-Archetype-for-Fighters) into a setting it doesn't fit well by corrupting a class the setting needs. A wandslinger could be implemented in many ways, but artificer is probably not where it belongs.

[Max_Killjoy]

Funny thing is, especially using the magic item crafting rules in XGTE, maybe there's not that much need for a standalone dedicated Artificer. Per XGTE, it doesn't even appear that you need to be able to cast spells to create magic items (please correct me if I'm reading it wrong).


What the system actually needs is, unless I've missed something:

1) A robust and complete set of alchemy rules, for putting effects into concoctions.

2) A robust and complete set of construct and device building / using rules.

3) An INT-based arcane half-caster.

[stoutstien]

Artificers are my personal favorite class so I'm willing to wait.
Personally I think an intelligent half caster would work.

[thoroughlyS]

The mechanical servant should be its own subclass not a tacked on ability to the whole class.

Personally I think an intelligent half caster would work.
I'm not super familiar with the Artificer as a concept, so these are the only thing I really have any thoughts about. Coming from v3.5, I would also be open to a wandslinger subclass.

[stoutstien]

I'm not super familiar with the Artificer as a concept, so these are the only thing I really have any thoughts about. Coming from v3.5, I would also be open to a wandslinger subclass.
could open up the door for a class feature to use spell slots to recharge your wands or overcharge them. Cantrip wands that can be bonus action would make a fun concept.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The version I wound up going with let you craft one magic item at a time, up to [Int mod] total, off a huge list. You could always disenchanted an existing one and craft a replacement-- sorta like preparing spells, but with magic items. Alchemy and Wand-casters got subclasses with roughly half casting on the Warlock template (strong at-wills and two powerful spells/short rest), and a third subclass was gishy.

[Zonugal]

Depending on the quality of the third attempted Artificer put out by WotC I'll likely just bite the bullet and create my own version whole-cloth by just using the Warlock as a template.

[tmjr6]

The artificer could also serve a niche that other magic users cannot get over in the rules of 5th edition. With the Advent of concentration spells you can't stack massive amounts of effects like you could in previous Editions. With the artificers infusion ability though, you could have it work where the individual using the infused item is concentrating on it. This means, but the artificer might be the only way to get around concentration. It doesn't Merit a whole new class, but it's definitely something that could make it unique.

[monkey3]

They could (should?) fill some serious holes in the world with the Artificer. For example:
- Is it just as easy to make one rare magic item than another?
- Can you make permanent undead? Some NPC must have done it. The world is full of them.
- If you can't make magic items for profit, what would the world have more than a handful made for your favorite meat-shields?

[Tetrasodium]

They could (should?) fill some serious holes in the world with the Artificer. For example:
- Is it just as easy to make one rare magic item than another?
- Can you make permanent undead? Some NPC must have done it. The world is full of them.
- If you can't make magic items for profit, what would the world have more than a handful made for your favorite meat-shields?

The Odakyr Rites (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-karrnathi-undead/)

[Man_Over_Game]

They could (should?) fill some serious holes in the world with the Artificer. For example:
- Is it just as easy to make one rare magic item than another?
- Can you make permanent undead? Some NPC must have done it. The world is full of them.
- If you can't make magic items for profit, what would the world have more than a handful made for your favorite meat-shields?

Two different styles of Artificer. One stays at home and the other one goes on adventures. There are Wizards that make spells, but we play those that cast them.

You could be a blacksmith who knows how to swing a sword, but people generally play the Fighter that knows how to ding dents out of his armor. There are crafting rules that aren't lucrative to the life of an adventurer, and the adventuring version of the Artificer ignores them just as much as anyone else does.

You don't need a subclass to tell you that you can make a weapon, but that still doesn't mean anyone is going to do it.

[Tetrasodium]

Two different styles of Artificer. One stays at home and the other one goes on adventures. There are Wizards that make spells, but we play those that cast them.

You could be a blacksmith who knows how to swing a sword, but people generally play the Fighter that knows how to ding dents out of his armor. There are crafting rules that aren't lucrative to the life of an adventurer, and the adventuring version of the Artificer ignores them just as much as anyone else does.

You don't need a subclass to tell you that you can make a weapon, but that still doesn't mean anyone is going to do it.

An artificer is more like an arcane macgyver who understands how magic works closer to how those new spell making wizards understand it than a regular adventuring wizard.

[Mortis_Elrod]

wayfinders guide to eberron (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/247882/Wayfinders-Guide-to-Eberron-5e) & Faithful of eberron (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/257238/The-Faithful-of-Eberron) both have a bunch of options (30ish classes & around 25 racial options). The problem you are griping about is wotc pretty much only putting stuff for a specific setting into hardcover books still


Faithful of Eberron is not WoTC, though yes wayfinder is nice.

[Tetrasodium]

Faithful of Eberron is not WoTC, though yes wayfinder is nice.

While true, they very much could have been from wotc had wotc been thinking about settings beyond just the one that rhymes with Begotten helms

[monkey3]

The Odakyr Rites (http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-karrnathi-undead/)

Is something official too much to ask for? My DM won't even look at Homebrew. Frankly I too would want something official to champion at our table. Homebrew already starts my argument at a disadvantage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Is something official too much to ask for? My DM won't even look at Homebrew. Frankly I too would want something official to champion at our table. Homebrew already starts my argument at a disadvantage.
I mean, Animate Dead and Create Undead do create permanent undead. You have no control over them that way, but if you just want to fill a crypt with angry skeletons, there you go.

[MaxWilson]

I mean, Animate Dead and Create Undead do create permanent undead. You have no control over them that way, but if you just want to fill a crypt with angry skeletons, there you go.

You can use your one free day of control from Create Undead to take longer-term control of them via other spells like Mass Suggestion IX (lasts for a year and a day). Wights, for instance, are not immune to charm and so are potentially vulnerable to Geas and Mass Suggestion, not to mention plain old persuasion and intimidation.

[Man_Over_Game]

You can use your one free day of control from Create Undead to take longer-term control of them via other spells like Mass Suggestion IX (lasts for a year and a day). Wights, for instance, are not immune to charm and so are potentially vulnerable to Geas and Mass Suggestion, not to mention plain old persuasion and intimidation.

Kinda gives me this image of a powerful necromancer choosing to make a weaker undead, because they're the only kind who actually listens.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Kinda gives me this image of a powerful necromancer choosing to make a weaker undead, because they're the only kind who actually listens.
On the other hand, smarter undead can be bargained with.

[monkey3]

You can use your one free day of control from Create Undead to take longer-term control of them via other spells like Mass Suggestion IX (lasts for a year and a day). Wights, for instance, are not immune to charm and so are potentially vulnerable to Geas and Mass Suggestion, not to mention plain old persuasion and intimidation.

That's actually good. I had not thought of that. Mass Suggestion has a limit of 12 creatures. But I could cast each each day, and end up with a couple hundred undead following me (at the cost of the 9th level spell). Nice trick.

[ad_hoc]

They could (should?) fill some serious holes in the world with the Artificer. For example:
- Is it just as easy to make one rare magic item than another?
- Can you make permanent undead? Some NPC must have done it. The world is full of them.
- If you can't make magic items for profit, what would the world have more than a handful made for your favorite meat-shields?

There are no holes (of this nature). Just because something isn't a player option doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This isn't 3e.

PCs use different rules than NPCs/monsters. The DM determines the nature of NPCs/monsters.

It's entirely possible for all magic items to come about from fantastical circumstances, rare magical materials, divine intervention, etc. 5e doesn't have a mundane magic item economy built into it, and it is better for it.

[Tetrasodium]

Is something official too much to ask for? My DM won't even look at Homebrew. Frankly I too would want something official to champion at our table. Homebrew already starts my argument at a disadvantage.


The problem id that there is pretty much nobody but bbeg/villian types in forgotten realms who do that sort of thing. the Odakyr Rites were introduced in either 3.5 or 4e. Emerald scout (ranger archtype) can cast animate dead w/o using a spell slot & the resulting undead last until they take a long rest instead of the normal ranger pet & a few other stuff as they level... but again, not forgotten realms. Looks like there is some other undead related archtypes in there, but that one comes closest. Faithful of Eberron is more like a guild adept product than a homebrew one.

Edit: Your frustration is well understood by myself & others who are fans of a setting other than forgotten realms and have had to face both being denied the option to play stuff from our favorite setting as well as being expected to accept wholesale import of stuff from forgotten realms. For whatever reason, wotc has been going all in on forgotteb realms. The ravinica book brings up the question of how the FRFRFRFR railroad line goes in the future though.

[Garfunion]

I’ve come to the understanding that they will not be able to create an adequate Artificer class for 5e. Magic items are just not needed in 5e, so the whole main theme of the class is pointless. It would be easier to just re-skin the Warlock class, and creating a spell list for the class that focuses on buffing and enhancing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I’ve come to the understanding that they will not be able to create an adequate Artificer class for 5e. Magic items are just not needed in 5e, so the whole main theme of the class is pointless. It would be easier to just re-skin the Warlock class, and creating a spell list for the class that focuses on buffing and enhancing.
The benefits of creating a new class to fill this niche isn't just to create a class that players want to fill an archetype, but to also allow that class to "break" some established game rules.

The things they got right (in my opinion) with the previous iterations were Item Imbuement and Additional Attunement. An Artificer should have a bit extra when it comes to using and creating magical items (not necessarily "Magic Items" out of the DMG) and those two features did well in at least taking steps towards that.

I'm hopeful that this new Artificer will at least meet major expectations. I'm not quite so cynical that I'd assume WotC would fail to take the criticism from the previous iterations into consideration.

[Man_Over_Game]

The benefits of creating a new class to fill this niche isn't just to create a class that players want to fill an archetype, but to also allow that class to "break" some established game rules.

The things they got right (in my opinion) with the previous iterations were Item Imbuement and Additional Attunement. An Artificer should have a bit extra when it comes to using and creating magical items (not necessarily "Magic Items" out of the DMG) and those two features did well in at least taking steps towards that.

I'm hopeful that this new Artificer will at least meet major expectations. I'm not quite so cynical that I'd assume WotC would fail to take the criticism from the previous iterations into consideration.

Agreed. I don't want someone who makes permanent magic items. I want someone who can make a magical grenade, or a magic glowstick that removes magical darkness, or can build specific devices for specific gains that only he can use (similar to a Transmuter's Philosopher's Stone).

I want something adaptable, that uses intelligence, that doesn't necessarily use spells.

[Garfunion]

Agreed. I don't want someone who makes permanent magic items. I want someone who can make a magical grenade, or a magic glowstick that removes magical darkness, or can build specific devices for specific gains that only he can use (similar to a Transmuter's Philosopher's Stone).

I want something adaptable, that uses intelligence, that doesn't necessarily use spells.

Which can be achieved by re-fluffing spells.
Pact Magic = Infusions
Invocations = Schemas
Schema example;
Otherworldly Leap = Spring Heel Boots
Once per day, you touch a pair of boots granting the wearer of the boots the ability to cast jump spell on themselves at will for the next 24 hours. You may enchant additional boots in these way by sacrificing one or more infusion spell slots.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Which can be achieved by re-fluffing spells.
Pact Magic = Infusions
Invocations = Schemas
Schema example;
Otherworldly Leap = Spring Heel Boots
Once per day, you touch a pair of boots granting the wearer of the boots the ability to cast jump spell on themselves at will for the next 24 hours. You may enchant additional boots in these way by sacrificing one or more infusion spell slots.
You can sort of do that, sure. You can sort of do lots of stuff with refluffing. But D&D is a fundamentally crunchy game; at a certain point, you really need some new mechanics to get the feel right. At the very least a new subclass.

Like, to me the feel of an Artificer is in the slow preparation of specific options, in having an arsenal of always-on "magic items" and being able to pass them out to allies. You don't have to get totally nuts-- The old Artificer Arcane Tradition, for instance, managed to hit a lot of those point--but some concepts are distinct enough that they demand something new.

[Vogie]

Agreed. I don't want someone who makes permanent magic items. I want someone who can make a magical grenade, or a magic glowstick that removes magical darkness, or can build specific devices for specific gains that only he can use (similar to a Transmuter's Philosopher's Stone).

I want something adaptable, that uses intelligence, that doesn't necessarily use spells.

That is the dream. I'd love to see something that uses spell-like effects without binding it into a spellcasting paradigm.

That was the problem with the Rune Scribe and the old Artificer(s) - they were worse wizards, but with additional time-consuming strange requirement to then imprint a bad spell list into objects in less-than-useful ways.

[Max_Killjoy]

You can sort of do that, sure. You can sort of do lots of stuff with refluffing. But D&D is a fundamentally crunchy game; at a certain point, you really need some new mechanics to get the feel right. At the very least a new subclass.

Like, to me the feel of an Artificer is in the slow preparation of specific options, in having an arsenal of always-on "magic items" and being able to pass them out to allies. You don't have to get totally nuts-- The old Artificer Arcane Tradition, for instance, managed to hit a lot of those point--but some concepts are distinct enough that they demand something new.

And then there's also the flipside problem, with mechanics that hit just the right feel, locked behind really wrong fluff and/or "main stat". There are a lot of things that the Warlock mechanics would work for, but right now they're tied to the pact, and to CHA.

[Grod_The_Giant]

And then there's also the flipside problem, with mechanics that hit just the right feel, locked behind really wrong fluff and/or "main stat". There are a lot of things that the Warlock mechanics would work for, but right now they're tied to the pact, and to CHA.
I'd rather have that; it's a lot easier to fix fluff than mechanics.

[Garfunion]

And then there's also the flipside problem, with mechanics that hit just the right feel, locked behind really wrong fluff and/or "main stat". There are a lot of things that the Warlock mechanics would work for, but right now they're tied to the pact, and to CHA.

I would change the main stat to Intelligence and the patrons to Eberron’s houses.


But we will see what they come up with, when they finally release it.

[T.G. Oskar]

Which can be achieved by re-fluffing spells.
Pact Magic = Infusions
Invocations = Schemas
Schema example;
Otherworldly Leap = Spring Heel Boots
Once per day, you touch a pair of boots granting the wearer of the boots the ability to cast jump spell on themselves at will for the next 24 hours. You may enchant additional boots in these way by sacrificing one or more infusion spell slots.

I agree with that notion, of making the Artificer unique by using a variant of Pact Magic for Infusions, but with a little issue there.

Schemas are...complex. They're essentially blueprints. Minor Schemas are essentially reusable spell scrolls, which allow you to cast the engraved spell once per long rest while they recharge. In 3.5, they were the equivalent of Eternal Wands, but with scrolls (and with Wands taking the way of Eternal Wands in this edition, the argument stands a bit more). Major Schemas, on the other hand, detail how to create magic items for purposes of mass production, and even contraptions that can be world-altering. (The starter adventure for Eberron, and the accompanying adventure path, led to a complete schema for what's essentially an AI for a Warforged Titan gone rogue).

If you intend to work Major Schemas into the Artificer, they have to work as they intend to; permanent, mass-produced magic items that are more intended for utility. Those "Spring Heel Boots" you speak about? A good deal of Artificers know how to make them (hence, why they're part of the "Invocation-equivalent" power list), but instead of having to activate them every now and then, their effects are (for all intents and purposes) always active, or always able to be activated. Using the same example, those Spring Heel Boots the Artificer creates have a permanent effect. You can then work the limitations; Eberron has an in-built limitation with Dragonshards, but you could work with more general limitations. Perhaps they work as prototypes, or you made them through flashes of inspiration that are keyed to your way of creating items; they could work as discoveries of some sort, which you made on a moment, but aren't able to duplicate them as easily?

Anyways; that was the minor issue. Mostly semantics, but enough to bug me.

[sightlessrealit]

Welp, it's the last day of February so here's hoping.

[Dankus Memakus]

Welp, it's the last day of February so here's hoping.

I came here to say the same. My faith is not high

[tmjr6]

One concern I have, is that they've kinda destroyed any hype for it. I love the artificer, it is my favorite class, so when I first heard that an updated version was coming out this month, I was excited... then it was pushed to the last week... and now it the last day of February. Even though they have been intentionally vague about when it will come out this week, "we'll tell you when it comes out" has been their attitude. It could be a phenomenal remake, and ready for AL testing like they've mentioned before, perfect to put into Eberron again. At the same time, this has been a frustrating series of events for a lot of people, despite it being free content. If it isn't worth the wait, WotC is going to get a LOT of flak for essentially delaying so-so content, so let's hope it's a good redesign.

[Dankus Memakus]

One concern I have, is that they've kinda destroyed any hype for it. I love the artificer, it is my favorite class, so when I first heard that an updated version was coming out this month, I was excited... then it was pushed to the last week... and now it the last day of February. Even though they have been intentionally vague about when it will come out this week, "we'll tell you when it comes out" has been their attitude. It could be a phenomenal remake, and ready for AL testing like they've mentioned before, perfect to put into Eberron again. At the same time, this has been a frustrating series of events for a lot of people, despite it being free content. If it isn't worth the wait, WotC is going to get a LOT of flak for essentially delaying so-so content, so let's hope it's a good redesign.

Yeah I agree. It has been a very frustrating series of events for a lot of people. If I’m not mistaken it was originally promised in November and we are still waiting for it. I hope to god it’s good

[Blackbando]

I've already given up on like 90% of my hopes for UA, so if Artificer is bad, I'll have lost just about all faith in UA content being good.

That being said, I made a gamble with a friend that it'd be good, so, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt, here. Even if I'm probably wrong, knowing past UAs.

[jaappleton]

Yeah I agree. It has been a very frustrating series of events for a lot of people. If I’m not mistaken it was originally promised in November and we are still waiting for it. I hope to god it’s good

Part of me actually hopes it goes off the grid.

Intelligence based half caster with short rest casting, Pact Magic style.

Why do I hope for this? Well one because I think it can work. I truly do.

The other reason is because I want to drink tears.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Part of me actually hopes it goes off the grid.

Intelligence based half caster with short rest casting, Pact Magic style.

Why do I hope for this? Well one because I think it can work. I truly do.

The other reason is because I want to drink tears.
That's how mine works, at least! Well, 2/3 subclasses (wands and potions); the third is a gish.

[ad_hoc]

If it isn't worth the wait, WotC is going to get a LOT of flak for essentially delaying so-so content, so let's hope it's a good redesign.

Will they though?

How many people actually care that much?

[jaappleton]

Will they though?

How many people actually care that much?

Lotta people on forums will be up in arms. That's for certain.

People on Twitter will be pissed... Really pissed, almost vile.

And in a couple months, we're all going to buy Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

[ad_hoc]

Lotta people on forums will be up in arms. That's for certain.

People on Twitter will be pissed... Really pissed, almost vile.

And in a couple months, we're all going to buy Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

Yeah, I guess I'm asking how many that really is.

'People on forums' is a tiny section of the 5e player base.

[n00b]

Will they though?

How many people actually care that much?

The reality is probably not that many. The majority of my group isn't on any message board so I doubt many if any of them even know about stuff like this. I feel the average player won't be impacted.

[Dankus Memakus]

Yeah, I guess I'm asking how many that really is.

'People on forums' is a tiny section of the 5e player base.

I mean I’d say it’s a decent amount of the player base. Reddit is a fairly large community and they will take flak on there, Twitter will go nuts and that’s a decent chunk too. It will be enough to show Crawford that they need to be more careful with delays

Edit: as n00b says most of my group isn’t on the forums but they do know about the artificer and most people I’ve gamed with either are following twitter or check it on occasion

[ad_hoc]

I mean I’d say it’s a decent amount of the player base. Reddit is a fairly large community and they will take flak on there, Twitter will go nuts and that’s a decent chunk too. It will be enough to show Crawford that they need to be more careful with delays

Edit: as n00b says most of my group isn’t on the forums but they do know about the artificer and most people I’ve gamed with either are following twitter or check it on occasion

This is assuming everyone there cares.

Keep in mind that the 5e player base is around 15 million people. WotC probably care more about making a good finished product than rushing out a playtest document.

I'm going to guess it's going to be a vocal minority. It doesn't take many people to create an angry echo chamber.

I'm also going to guess that very few people will stop playing the game over it.

If this encourages WotC to do anything it will be to engage less with its fanbase because people will get angry over everything.

[Daphne]

If this encourages WotC to do anything it will be to engage less with its fanbase because people will get angry over everything.

And that's a good thing, they've been lying about the Artificer release for months already. Better stay quiet.

People have the the right to be upset about it.

[Dankus Memakus]

This is assuming everyone there cares.

Keep in mind that the 5e player base is around 15 million people. WotC probably care more about making a good finished product than rushing out a playtest document.

I'm going to guess it's going to be a vocal minority. It doesn't take many people to create an angry echo chamber.

I'm also going to guess that very few people will stop playing the game over it.

If this encourages WotC to do anything it will be to engage less with its fanbase because people will get angry over everything.

I agree essentially nobody will stop playing over it but I would hope that WotC just gets more careful about release dates. Sure it’s a vocal minority, that’s true about most upsets in the community. However I don’t wanna say it’s gonna be a good finished product until I see it.

Edit: I agree with Daphne, it would be wise just to stay quiet about these things

[Rukelnikov]

WotC probably care more about making a good finished product than rushing out a playtest document.

Tbh, I back that policy. Yeah, we've had faulty artificer 1 and 2 for quite some time, but instead of getting faulty artificer 3 today, I'd rather keep waiting and have good artificer whenever it is.

[Dankus Memakus]

Tbh, I back that policy. Yeah, we've had faulty artificer 1 and 2 for quite some time, but instead of getting faulty artificer 3 today, I'd rather keep waiting and have good artificer whenever it is.

I fully agree but then they should just try to keep said artificer under wraps until it’s ready

[Rukelnikov]

I fully agree but then they should just try to keep said artificer under wraps until it’s ready

Yeah, I think they probably felt forced to put a date on it due to the the communities' insistence on the subject.

[nickl_2000]

Yeah, I think they probably felt forced to put a date on it due to the the communities' insistence on the subject.

Honestly, I think it is more of an issue with communication than anything else. If there was an honest posting out there that said.

"Hey all, we are sorry. We have been working on the artificer UA, but we just aren't happy with the way it has turned out. We will try and get it out as soon as we feel happy with it"

there would be a lot more people understanding about it.

[Dankus Memakus]

Yeah, I think they probably felt forced to put a date on it due to the the communities' insistence on the subject.

I hope they have just learned from this and won’t do it in the future.

Edit: I definitely would be a lot less irritated if they just said they wanna keep working on it. The fact that snow was a delay for a digital product enraged me. If they would just say that it’s not good and they wanna improve it then I’d be fine with it

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sure, the vast majority of the game's audience won't complain about UA being late. The vast majority won't even notice; the vast majority are using the DM's books, maybe with a copy of the PHB. They're not following UA at all, or Twitter feeds, or anything like that.

The "small vocal minority" is a tiny minority of the overall audience, but they're a substantially larger minority of the kind of players who actually read and play and provide feedback on UA stuff.

[Tetrasodium]

I hope they have just learned from this and won’t do it in the future.

Edit: I definitely would be a lot less irritated if they just said they wanna keep working on it. The fact that snow was a delay for a digital product enraged me. If they would just say that it’s not good and they wanna improve it then I’d be fine with it

If that is what they learned, they were not paying attention. [b]The[b/] reason people have pitchforks and torches out for artificer is because all of the versions released on UA prior to this post were made for either ravinica or Lantan (A place in FR so minimally popular that both the spellplague and the sundering destroyed it) rather than designing it to fit the setting it came from. The previous artificer versions were not just mechanically not quite there, but also needlessly problematic to the eberron setting with their baked in fluff in order to build them to best fit Lantan/Ravinica.

[Dankus Memakus]

Sure, the vast majority of the game's audience won't complain about UA being late. The vast majority won't even notice; the vast majority are using the DM's books, maybe with a copy of the PHB. They're not following UA at all, or Twitter feeds, or anything like that.

The "small vocal minority" is a tiny minority of the overall audience, but they're a substantially larger minority of the kind of players who actually read and play and provide feedback on UA stuff.

This is a very valid point. Those players are valuable as well due to their influence.

I was not aware the artificer was written for those settings I was under the impression that it was written for eberron

Anyways, has anyone heard any news? I’m still seeing nothing on my end

[Garfunion]

If that is what they learned, they were not paying attention. [b]The[b/] reason people have pitchforks and torches out for artificer is because all of the versions released on UA prior to this post were made for either ravinica or Lantan (A place in FR so minimally popular that both the spellplague and the sundering destroyed it) rather than designing it to fit the setting it came from. The previous artificer versions were not just mechanically not quite there, but also needlessly problematic to the eberron setting with their baked in fluff in order to build them to best fit Lantan/Ravinica.
I agree to this. If they’re not going to create an Artificer with Eberron in full focus, they might as well not call it an Artificer.

[Max_Killjoy]

Because there were never artificers before Eberron or outside of Eberron?

[Tetrasodium]

Because there were never artificers before Eberron or outside of Eberron?

Glad that you asked...

The artificer is a playable character class in the Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) fantasy role-playing game. This fictional class of characters first appeared in the 3.5 edition of D&D and was introduced in the Eberron campaign setting. The artificer is a unique base class that reflects many of the core themes of Eberron


Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificer_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons))
In short, no there was never an artificer class prior to Eberron.

[Rukelnikov]

Glad that you asked...

In short, no there was never an artificer class prior to Eberron.

Forgotten Realms had Gnome Artificer as a PRC before Eberron came out

[Tetrasodium]

Forgotten Realms had Gnome Artificer as a PRC before Eberron came out

Source unreferenced there.

[Rukelnikov]

Source unreferenced there.

Magic of Faerun, year 2001. Don't remember the page, but there aren't that many prcs in that book.

[Legendairy]

It’s true, they were non magical gimmick crafters. They made things that could be neat or explode and they made their own construct. The FR artificer while neat was very weak iirc. Neat flavor tho. The art is a gnome with a repeating crossbow and a weird dwarves looking construct thing.

[Seekergeek]

Source unreferenced there.

Magic of Faerun, page 23.

edit: partial ninja'd

[Rukelnikov]

It’s true, they were non magical gimmick crafters. They made things that could be neat or explode and they made their own construct. The FR artificer while neat was very weak iirc. Neat flavor tho. The art is a gnome with a repeating crossbow and a weird dwarves looking construct thing.

And stepping on a dead beholder IIRC

EDIT: It wasn't a beholder, but a wormy thingy

[Legendairy]

I think it’s page 23 in magic of fearun.

Edit:Ninja’ed

[Tectorman]

Because there were never artificers before Eberron or outside of Eberron?

The way I remember it, there never was an Artificer CLASS before Eberron, but I remember some posters saying the first Artificer UA where it was a Wizard archetype actually served as a decent callback to an Artificer kit for the Wizard class back in 2E.

It just wasn't a decent callback for the Eberron Artificer, which is the only kind of Artificer that correctly-thinking people wanted.

[Legendairy]

Prestige classes are still classes, just more prestiges. :tongue:

[Max_Killjoy]

Glad that you asked...

In short, no there was never an artificer class prior to Eberron.

Because, of course, the entirety of multiple spec-fic subgenres, and all of RPGs always, are defined by D&D...

[Ventruenox]

In short, no there was never an artificer class prior to Eberron.

1996 TSR's Player's Option: Spells and Magic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player%27s_Option:_Spells_%26_Magic). Listed under "Specialists in Schools of Thaumaturgy." Both the Alchemist and Artificer are detailed. Pages 20-22. So while not it's own full class, and instead a Wizardly tradition, it does predate Eberron.

[Tetrasodium]

1996 TSR's Player's Option: Spells and Magic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player%27s_Option:_Spells_%26_Magic). Listed under "Specialists in Schools of Thaumaturgy." Both the Alchemist and Artificer are detailed. Pages 20-22. So while not it's own full class, and instead a Wizardly tradition, it does predate Eberron.

As a concept yes, but not a "Class", Eberron made it into an enjoyable & fleshed out "Class" that worked due to Eberron's unique take on magic as a science & wide magic. As to the people pointing at magic of faerun... That says: "To qualify to become a gnome artificer, a character must fulfill all the following criteria. Race: Gnome (or human from the Lantan region).". Lantan was so minimally popular that WotC destroyed it in both the spellplague and the sundering.

Despite the minimal popularity of Lantan, I'm pretty sure that wqe can all aggree to say that if WotC made a hardcover adventure centering around a cannith experiment to send an airship to another crystal sphere that immediately crashed on an island north of chult where they had to establish a civilization & adapt to life in such an uncivilized primitive world would make many of the "bt magic of faerun" bleeping livid.

[Garfunion]

We are really getting into the nitty-gritty of the origins of the Artificer.
But from what I have seen here and in other locations, players want an Eberron Artificer. An Eberron Artificer does not use gunpowder when a wand of fireball is better and “safer”, they do not use steam to power their devices when they can bind an Elemental to do the work for them. An Eberron Artificer infuses magic into an item so that they or an ally can use it at a later time.

[Dankus Memakus]

We are really getting into the nitty-gritty of the origins of the Artificer.
But from what I have seen here and in other locations, players want an Eberron Artificer. An Eberron Artificer does not use gunpowder when a wand of fireball is better and “safer”, they do not use steam to power their devices when they can bind an Elemental to do the work for them. An Eberron Artificer infuses magic into an item so that they or an ally can use it at a later time.

Yeah... I’ve seen that too. I think I’m pretty on board with that, although It may be because I’ve just been super into eberron lately. Honestly they should probably make it setting neutral while still trying to capture the eberron flavor

[Tectorman]

We are really getting into the nitty-gritty of the origins of the Artificer.
But from what I have seen here and in other locations, players want an Eberron Artificer. An Eberron Artificer does not use gunpowder when a wand of fireball is better and “safer”, they do not use steam to power their devices when they can bind an Elemental to do the work for them. An Eberron Artificer infuses magic into an item so that they or an ally can use it at a later time.

IMO, yes and no. I'm looking for an Eberron Artificer primarily, which does mean no steam power and no gunpowder. However, I also want those things available to the Artificer, so as to be useful elsewhere as well, which probably means a subclass (ideally, subclasses).

[Tetrasodium]

IMO, yes and no. I'm looking for an Eberron Artificer primarily, which does mean no steam power and no gunpowder. However, I also want those things available to the Artificer, so as to be useful elsewhere as well, which probably means a subclass (ideally, subclasses).

gunpowder & steam power should not be an artificer subclass, it should be something else. I'm playing an artificerish (fighter 1->school of invention wizard level:whatever) in a game with another player playing matt mercer's gunslinger (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/170778/Gunslinger-Martial-Archetype-for-Fighters). It's a fine class for what it is, but it has nothing in common with an artificer and trying to make it into an arcane focused subclass would do damage to both artificer and gunslinger.

Eberron has wide magic, not forgotten realms. The stchik with magic in FR is that magic is hard. The stchik with gunpowder & steam power is that it's easy to operate... stick those archtypes under a base class like fighter/rogue/etc that skillfully use easy to operate things if you want FR centric versions instead of corrupting something from eberron to better fit a setting like FR again.

[Tectorman]

gunpowder & steam power should not be an artificer subclass, it should be something else. I'm playing an artificerish (fighter 1->school of invention wizard level:whatever) in a game with another player playing matt mercer's gunslinger (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/170778/Gunslinger-Martial-Archetype-for-Fighters). It's a fine class for what it is, but it has nothing in common with an artificer and trying to make it into an arcane focused subclass would do damage to both artificer and gunslinger.

Eberron has wide magic, not forgotten realms. The stchik with magic in FR is that magic is hard. The stchik with gunpowder & steam power is that it's easy to operate... stick those archtypes under a base class like fighter/rogue/etc that skillfully use easy to operate things if you want FR centric versions instead of corrupting something from eberron to better fit a setting like FR again.

The Artificer not a good fit for a Gunslinger? Agreed. Not a good fit for something like a Gunmage? One who buffs his ally by shooting him in the back, only to reveal that his buddy now has Enlarge Person or something? IMO, that's much closer.

[jaappleton]

The Artificer not a good fit for a Gunslinger? Agreed. Not a good fit for something like a Gunmage? One who buffs his ally by shooting him in the back, only to reveal that his buddy now has Enlarge Person or something? IMO, that's much closer.

You play Ana in Overwatch, don't you?

[Marcloure]

The Artificer not a good fit for a Gunslinger? Agreed. Not a good fit for something like a Gunmage? One who buffs his ally by shooting him in the back, only to reveal that his buddy now has Enlarge Person or something? IMO, that's much closer.

Agreed. I can totally see, and I personally prefer, the Artificer wielding an arcane gun which draws glyph in the air and shoots magic bolts of fire and lightning. And has those cool googles of bronze with many kinds of lens.

[Tectorman]

You play Ana in Overwatch, don't you?

My inspiration was Kurohime from the manga by the same name (with a tiny bit of Who Framed Roger Rabbit). Who doesn't want to shoot/summon flying sharks at people?

[Ventruenox]

Persona 3 (https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/megamitensei/images/5/57/EvokerGame.gif/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20150919121158) flashbacks...

[Mortis_Elrod]

So here we are.

the big day.


Who's excited?

[Misterwhisper]

So here we are.

the big day.


Who's excited?

Wet few people even believe it will be out today at all.

[Tetrasodium]

The Artificer not a good fit for a Gunslinger? Agreed. Not a good fit for something like a Gunmage? One who buffs his ally by shooting him in the back, only to reveal that his buddy now has Enlarge Person or something? IMO, that's much closer.

Bold from me. What you are describing is either a wandslinger or sometrhing like the arcane knights(?), both are eberron things. A focus item can take many forms, but there is no reason for a focus item to be a ranged weapon. There are feats like warcaster that let you use a weapon, but there are already some wizard archtypes that grant similar (blade dancer? from scag, maybe xge war magic, EK/AT etc)... but "magic is hard to learn" is a trope of every setting where guns are a thing
[/U]

[Garfunion]

The “Gunmage” could already exist if the Arcane Archer didn’t have a bow restriction, and if it had the ability to cast Elemental Weapons spell.

[tmjr6]

The “Gunmage” could already exist if the Arcane Archer didn’t have a bow restriction, and if it had the ability to cast Elemental Weapons spell. At your home games, especially if you are doing Urban Arcana, I would ask the DM to lift the restriction. I might play one down the road, now that I think about it.

[Tectorman]

Bold from me. What you are describing is either a wandslinger or sometrhing like the arcane knights(?), both are eberron things. A focus item can take many forms, but there is no reason for a focus item to be a ranged weapon. There are feats like warcaster that let you use a weapon, but there are already some wizard archtypes that grant similar (blade dancer? from scag, maybe xge war magic, EK/AT etc)... but "magic is hard to learn" is a trope of every setting where guns are a thing
[/U]

No, a focus item doesn't have to be a ranged weapon, let alone a gun. Years ago, I played a Warlock homebrewed into a Witch-Gunslinger, where the change was, very simply, "you don't get wands, staves, rods, or orbs as your arcane focus; instead use a gun as your material component". But it also doesn't have to be PREVENTED from being a ranged weapon, including a gun. And if it's kept to its own subclass the same way the Bladesinger is, not affecting the larger whole, what difference does it make?

Also, what does "'magic is hard to learn' is a trope of every setting where guns are a thing" have to do with letting or preventing the Artificer class (not even the whole class, just a subclass) be the vehicle by which gunmagic is expressed?

[Max_Killjoy]

To me, the Artificer is as much about making things as about using them, and the "gun" thing only fits for certain settings.

[Tectorman]

To me, the Artificer is as much about making things as about using them, and the "gun" thing only fits for certain settings.

Agreed, just like Bladesinging being an expression of Elf civilization and inaccessible to non-elves only fits for certain settings. Ergo, Bladesinger is not a full-on class, but just because Eldritch Knight already existed didn't mean the Bladesinger couldn't also be created.

[Daithi]

Well, half the day is gone and still no artificer.

They made us wait until the last day of February, so I guess now they'll make us wait until the last hour of the day.
Then they'll announce they've decided to release it in March's UA, which by the way is going to be delayed.

[Man_Over_Game]

At your home games, especially if you are doing Urban Arcana, I would ask the DM to lift the restriction. I might play one down the road, now that I think about it.

I love the idea of an Arcane Archer Warforged. Chooses Arcane Shots based on the bosses I defeated. Has cobalt blue armor. Constantly get told about how my Ruby Red Eldritch Knight brother is so much cooler and better optimized than I am.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Well, half the day is gone and still no artificer.

They made us wait until the last day of February, so I guess now they'll make us wait until the last hour of the day.
Then they'll announce they've decided to release it in March's UA, which by the way is going to be delayed.

I don't think I've ever experienced such agony over waiting for something i really don't even need.

But the heart wants what the heart wants, I'm waiting for Peace Talks, I've waited for Incredibles 2, and I've waited at the DMV.

but idk if I can go much longer...

[Tetrasodium]

No, a focus item doesn't have to be a ranged weapon, let alone a gun. Years ago, I played a Warlock homebrewed into a Witch-Gunslinger, where the change was, very simply, "you don't get wands, staves, rods, or orbs as your arcane focus; instead use a gun as your material component". But it also doesn't have to be PREVENTED from being a ranged weapon, including a gun. And if it's kept to its own subclass the same way the Bladesinger is, not affecting the larger whole, what difference does it make?

Also, what does "'magic is hard to learn' is a trope of every setting where guns are a thing" have to do with letting or preventing the Artificer class (not even the whole class, just a subclass) be the vehicle by which gunmagic is expressed?
Guns are absolutely mundane and have bee so since they were first introduced in ad&d(?), there is absolutely nothing arcane about using them. The class/archtype you are asking for with "gunmage" is called "Arcane Knight", "Arcane Archer", "Wandslinger" or something else but using a refluffed focus item. Your post itself display the problematic nature of The "gunmage". You want it to break the rules pointlessly in order to sidestep "magic is hard" while keeping "guns are easy to teach someone" or you would not have taken issue with the term focus item. Your wet dream class that needs to invent new definitions for already defined terms has no business being an artificer subclass because artificers understand how magic works very deeply to the point of being able to break rules by doing stuff like casting divine spells as arcane ones in the process of quickly hacking together magic items to get the job done.... your "gunmage" does nothing like that.

[Vogie]

I love the idea of an Arcane Archer Warforged. Chooses Arcane Shots based on the bosses I defeated. Has cobalt blue armor. Constantly get told about how my Ruby Red Eldritch Knight brother is so much cooler and better optimized than I am.

I love the idea of a Warforged Chain Warlock, played where the Sprite Familiar is the PC, and the Warforged is actually a mecha that they pilot around, Titanfall-style.

[Garfunion]

I love the idea of a Warforged Chain Warlock, played where the Sprite Familiar is the PC, and the Warforged is actually a mecha that they pilot around, Titanfall-style.
That’s pretty funny and good. I might have to use that.

[Rukelnikov]

I love the idea of a Warforged Chain Warlock, played where the Sprite Familiar is the PC, and the Warforged is actually a mecha that they pilot around, Titanfall-style.

I think he was suggesting having his warforged named Megaforged X

[clem]

I love the idea of an Arcane Archer Warforged. Chooses Arcane Shots based on the bosses I defeated. Has cobalt blue armor. Constantly get told about how my Ruby Red Eldritch Knight brother is so much cooler and better optimized than I am.
I would love to see the Spellcarved Soldier brought back as an warforged-only Artificer subclass.

[Tetrasodium]

I would love to see the Spellcarved Soldier brought back as an warforged-only Artificer subclass.

wasn't that more like a specialized EK with hints of arcane paladinish abilities to it?

[Tectorman]

Guns are absolutely mundane and have bee so since they were first introduced in ad&d(?), there is absolutely nothing arcane about using them. The class/archtype you are asking for with "gunmage" is called "Arcane Knight", "Arcane Archer", "Wandslinger" or something else but using a refluffed focus item. Your post itself display the problematic nature of The "gunmage". You want it to break the rules pointlessly in order to sidestep "magic is hard" while keeping "guns are easy to teach someone" or you would not have taken issue with the term focus item. Your wet dream class that needs to invent new definitions for already defined terms has no business being an artificer subclass because artificers understand how magic works very deeply to the point of being able to break rules by doing stuff like casting divine spells as arcane ones in the process of quickly hacking together magic items to get the job done.... your "gunmage" does nothing like that.

Swords and other martial weapons are also mundane and easy to use, with nothing inherently arcane about them, either. And yet, EK, Arcane Archer, and Bladesinger still exist and still take the mundane sword and add magicky things to its use. Not to get around "magic is hard" and keep "swords are easy to teach someone", but to have swords integrated and blended along with magic into those subclasses' overall adventuring methodology.

Are you under the impression that I think the Gunmage would be the only means by which gunpowder adventuring would exist in a given setting? That it would be exclusive to a dedicated Gunslinger class or subclass? Does the Eldritch Knight negate the Battlemaster? Did any rules need to be broken to allow both in the same game?

I don't know if I've somehow stumbled into an argument you've had with other posters in other threads, but certain unnecessary phrases above would seem to suggest so. Please take a breather.

[Daithi]

Eldritch Blast is basically magical bullets that you never run out of.

[jaappleton]

For those upset it’s so late in the day with no Artificer, this isn’t unprecedented.

They dropped the first Mystic pretty late in the day. Somewhere around 4pm PST, if memory serves.

[Daphne]

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA-Artificer-2019.pdf

It's out

[Rukelnikov]

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA-Artificer-2019.pdf

It's out

Awesome, lets check it!

[Misterwhisper]

Well that is utterly ridiculous and quite a rip off of multiple online FPS games.

[Daphne]

I actually liked the old Artificer more...

[JackOfAllBuilds]

I’d like to think it was me, I tweeted at them the mob was readying the pitchforks, tar, and feathers.

[Marcloure]

The turret is cool, the infusions are better than free magic items. Other than that, I like some homebrewed artificers more.

[JackOfAllBuilds]

I’ve finished the base class, and I’m about to start pouring over the specialist archetypes...
So far I am loving this. It blends the kooky inventor of the last UA with the temporary magic items of the wizard subclass they tried making. I like the spell list, though it could use some fleshing/rounding out, and inclusions of some XGtE spells (almost every transmutation and abjuration 0-5, and maybe Life Transferrance & Booming Blade)

[Tetrasodium]

Magical tinkering is a bit off in being too simple, but overall ... think I like it though. Given how bad the previous versions were, I'm tentatively rating this "awesome" and hopefully the "butbutartificersfitguns" drum can diaf now.

[JackOfAllBuilds]

Magical tinkering is a bit off in being too simple, but overall ... think I like it though. Given how bad the previous versions were, I'm tentatively rating this "awesome" and hopefully the "butbutartificersfitguns" drum can diaf now.

I might agree on Magical Tinkering being too easy, will see how it works out in games. I love the flavor and mechanics of the tinkering options though. I could see 1 minute to tinker, or an action if you expend a spell slot.

[zylodrizzt]

Think they went more the right direction here

[Daithi]

I like it. Although, I'm not sure I'd want to play one.

Maybe a multi-class with the rogue. Kind of a souped up Arcane Trickster.

[Brance_a_Lot]

The only thing I found to be odd or off is the Arcane Armament. "Starting at 5th level, you can attack twice, rather than once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn, but one of the attacks must be made with a magic weapon, the magic of which you use to propel the attack."

I guess it's more Str or Dex weapon based Artificers, but both Specialists include mostly Int and spell casting benefits.:smallconfused:

[Tetrasodium]

The only thing I found to be odd or off is the Arcane Armament. "Starting at 5th level, you can attack twice, rather than once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn, but one of the attacks must be made with a magic weapon, the magic of which you use to propel the attack."

I guess it's more Str or Dex weapon based Artificers, but both Specialists include mostly Int and spell casting benefits.:smallconfused:

Artificers are kind of like magical hackers. even back in 35 when the arcane/divine magic divide was pretty strict... artificers could cast divine spells as an arcane caster without them being divine. The wording makes perfect sense in that regard They are hacking the magic woven into the weapon to perform the second attack for them.

[Tectorman]

How to make a Gunmage using the Artificer class:

Be in a world where firearms exist (this was always expected) and have it in your background that you're familiar with firearms. Benefit: You are automatically proficient with them.

At 2nd level, select a firearm as an item imbued with one of your Infusions (initially, this would be Enhanced Weapon but you can eventually use Radiant Weapon instead). Benefits: when you use the firearm as a weapon, you use it magically. Use it as your required tool for your spellcasting, and you are shooting out all the magical effects you want.

And there you go. The Gunmage is pretty much 100% reproduced by this point. Of particular note is that this isn't subclass dependent. EVERY Artificer can do this. In fact, Artificers can use firearms as arcane focuses before they can even use wands or staves (well, in the case of Artillerists; Alchemists never get wands or staves, period).

It should also be noted that this is almost exactly what I was doing with my Warlock home-brewed as a Witch-Gunslinger (except better because we didn't think about something to make the mundane use of the gun more magical).


Magical tinkering is a bit off in being too simple, but overall ... think I like it though. Given how bad the previous versions were, I'm tentatively rating this "awesome" and hopefully the "butbutartificersfitguns" drum can diaf now.

I'm sorry; I can't hear you over the sound of how awesomely WotC has facilitated using the Artificer to express a Gunmage character.

But seriously, now that you've weighed in a little on the Artificer (you overall like it and have even given it the tentative designation of "awesome"), inquiring minds want to know. How has "magic is hard" been sidestepped? What definitions got reinvented? What's that? Not a one of those things happened? (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ8K4wlBbXA) Exactly.

And is "diaf" supposed to mean "die in a fire"? Was that really worthy of you? Regardless, you don't have to worry about me beating that drum because, as far as I'm concerned, the mission to be able to use an Artificer to express a Gunmage has been accomplished spectacularly.

Good job, WotC!

[Rukelnikov]

And is "diaf" supposed to mean "die in a fire"? Was that really worthy of you? Regardless, you don't have to worry about me beating that drum because, as far as I'm concerned, the mission to be able to use an Artificer to express a Gunmage has been accomplished spectacularly.

Good job, WotC!

And you haven't even talked about Arcane Armament which literally allows you to shoot elemental bullets!

I really really like that spell

[Tetrasodium]

And you haven't even talked about Arcane Armament which literally allows you to shoot elemental bullets!

I really really like that spell

Neither are a problem because it's using a weapon that happens to be a gun like any other weapon rather than elevating a gun to being some kind of bizarre superstate of simultaneous "it's a wand & "It's not a wand"

[Rukelnikov]

Neither are a problem because it's using a weapon that happens to be a gun like any other weapon rather than elevating a gun to being some kind of bizarre superstate of simultaneous "it's a wand & "It's not a wand"

Why would I want it to be a wand? I want a gun! Every other wizard uses wands

[Tetrasodium]

Why would I want it to be a wand? I want a gun! Every other wizard uses wands

bleep if I know, but they made it a superstate (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93466/whats-an-atomic-superstate-superposition-and-how-is-it-possible) wand in the prior god awful implementation. What you are describing now is an existing class that happens to use a firearm instead of some other weapon. What was being discussed earlier was a special (sub)class that used a special gun capable of producing magical effects in ways that other weapons could not. This went to the point of someone complaining about calling the gun a focus item.

[Rukelnikov]

bleep if I know, but they made it a superstate (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93466/whats-an-atomic-superstate-superposition-and-how-is-it-possible) wand in the prior god awful implementation. What you are describing now is an existing class that happens to use a firearm instead of some other weapon. What was being discussed earlier was a special (sub)class that used a special gun capable of producing magical effects in ways that other weapons could not. This went to the point of someone complaining about calling the gun a focus item.

Ahhh, the thunder cannon? Technically, anyone can use it, they have to circumvent the non-proficiency, I had a player who wanted to play a sniper, and he loved that weapon but didn't like the artificer overall, so he made a rogue and took weapon master to use it.

[Tectorman]

bleep if I know, but they made it a superstate (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93466/whats-an-atomic-superstate-superposition-and-how-is-it-possible) wand in the prior god awful implementation. What you are describing now is an existing class that happens to use a firearm instead of some other weapon. What was being discussed earlier was a special (sub)class that used a special gun capable of producing magical effects in ways that other weapons could not. This went to the point of someone complaining about calling the gun a focus item.

That's what you took my position to be? Okay, clarifying that right now: I was never trying to elevate firearms to somehow go beyond other methods of creating magical effects. I thought that crystal clear when I was pointing out how EKs and Battlemasters can use the same weapons in magical and nonmagical ways, respectively, without invalidating each other or the very concepts of those weapons. Also, I never complained about calling a gun a focus item; that was how the homebrewed Warlock I was using worked in the first place and at my own suggestion (which I'm glad my DM went with). That the current Artificer does the same thing is what I'm going to call "convergent good ideas".

[Dankus Memakus]

So I feel like the general consensus is that people feel like it’s solid. I really like the concepts and I feel like this is a MUCH better designed class than before. I’m pleased